I think now is a good time to point out yet again that...

[monkey]

No WAY is Luck better than Wilson as everyone in the media (and most fans) continues to claim!!!

Luck is (dare I say it? - yeah I dare!) OVERRATED!!!

[FolkCrusader]

He he, it isn't zero sum. I love Luck, but no way I would ever bet against Russell. I want to watch him for another decade at least.

[monkey]

Ok, I just realized how random this thread must look (sorry about that), it's just that as I am watching the game, all I can think is that, there is not one single throw, run, play, whatever, that Andrew Luck has been able to do that Wilson cannot do as well or BETTER!
AND he does it without throwing picks!

Point is, not only is Wilson BETTER than Andrew Luck right now, Andrew Luck's supposed upside is not one little bit higher than Wilson's! Not one! All you need to do is watch the two play REALLY watch them without the silly preconceived notions about Luck that most fans ad the media seem unwilling to give up, and you will realize that the "potential" Luck supposedly has that Wilson doesn't, is all in their heads. The TRUTH is that, Luck is not one little bit more talented, doesn't have any real upside that Wilson also doesn't have (both will continue to get better as they mature) and CERTAINLY isn't any better right now!

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that, every time I watch Luck I think, "man that guy is going to be a great QB someday, if he stops forcing passes", whereas when I watch Wilson, all I think is, "I wouldn't trade this guy for ANY QB in the league!"
Wilson is better now, has been better all along (the numbers prove it) and has equally high, or higher upside as well.

[HumanCockroach]

Luck has an insane amount of talent, but he seems to be almost incapable of playing a complete football game. I pointed out how his "comebacks" were a process of his insane ability to put his team in almost an insurmountable hole early and often, and nothing has changed in that regard from his first day until now. People become enamored with how he performs in games like the KC playoff game, that a few lucky bounces and a bunch of injuries helped him create a huge comeback win ( conveniently forgetting who it was that almost single handedly put them IN that situation to begin with) and then somehow someway neglect to even acknowledge the Pats game the next week, playing a HORRID pass defense and still finding a way to throw five picks, or the Houston game the year before.

People, and the media DESPERATELY want Manning number 2, and Luck fits the "look" of that QB, and so, you have the media force feeding it, and less knowledgeable fans lapping it up and smiling. Wilson is more like Montana than Manning, and personally I'm fine with that. Let rubes that believe otherwise keep believing it, when everything is said and done most of us here and those that watch his excellence repeatedly, can laugh at guys as he is inducted to where he ultimately ends up IMHO.

[Anthony]

You know I have been watching the game and it amazes me how lucky Luck is, 2 ints, and 4 possession of 2 minutes or less, hanging his defense out to dry and he is in the game,

[Anthony]

Okay Lucks final stats

35/53 370 yards 7 ypa, 2 tds, 2ints, qb rating 83, and 19 yards rushing 3.8 ypc

So here we go again lots of yards, good complt%, 2 ints, bad qb rating, and his int that led to a TD is the difference. Oh and drives that we horrible in the 1st half Indy had 5 drives and none were over 3:11 minutes, talk about hanging your defense out to dry. In fat Luck only had 1 drive longer than 3:27 and scored on 4 of 12 drives, while Denver had 4 drives longer than 3:27. However you can bet they will be all over his jock.


Rw had a better QB rating and QBR more rushing yards, higher complt%, and NO INTS and Rw led 4 drives lasting over 3:27 also we scored on 6 of 8 drives not counting half ending ones.

[monkey]

Okay Lucks final stats

35/53 370 yards 7 ypa, 2 tds, 2ints, qb rating 83, and 19 yards rushing 3.8 ypc

Rw had a better QB rating and QBR more rushing yards, higher complt%, and NO INTS and Rw led 4 drives lasting over 3:27 also we scored on 6 of 8 drives not counting half ending ones.

All I know is, if 35/53 and 370 yards in a losing effort, is what it takes for the media to finally consider Wilson "elite", then I hope he never becomes elite! Our "game manager" prefers winning to putting up impressive looking numbers in a loss...and so do us Seahawks fans!
I'll take our "game manager" point guard QB over that nonsense every day of the week, and especially on Sundays!!!

[burrrton]

Rw had a better QB rating and QBR more rushing yards, higher complt%, and NO INTS and Rw led 4 drives lasting over 3:27 also we scored on 6 of 8 drives not counting half ending ones.

"YAH BUT TEH LUCKS THREW 53 TIMEZ SO WE KNOW HE'Z TEH ELEEEEETS!" -Future

[monkey]

"YAH BUT TEH LUCKS THREW 53 TIMEZ SO WE KNOW HE'Z TEH ELEEEEETS!" -Future

It's funny because it's true.

[EntiatHawk]

I going to love this season with the Manning and Luck narrative as we just keep trucking our opponents. Of course Wilson could not do anything if did not have the best defense in the league... right!!!

[rottweiler]

Luck has an insane amount of talent, but he seems to be almost incapable of playing a complete football game. I pointed out how his "comebacks" were a process of his insane ability to put his team in almost an insurmountable hole early and often, and nothing has changed in that regard from his first day until now. People become enamored with how he performs in games like the KC playoff game, that a few lucky bounces and a bunch of injuries helped him create a huge comeback win ( conveniently forgetting who it was that almost single handedly put them IN that situation to begin with) and then somehow someway neglect to even acknowledge the Pats game the next week, playing a HORRID pass defense and still finding a way to throw five picks, or the Houston game the year before.

People, and the media DESPERATELY want Manning number 2, and Luck fits the "look" of that QB, and so, you have the media force feeding it, and less knowledgeable fans lapping it up and smiling. Wilson is more like Montana than Manning, and personally I'm fine with that. Let rubes that believe otherwise keep believing it, when everything is said and done most of us here and those that watch his excellence repeatedly, can laugh at guys as he is inducted to where he ultimately ends up IMHO.

Well said.

[Futureite]

Luck has an insane amount of talent, but he seems to be almost incapable of playing a complete football game. I pointed out how his "comebacks" were a process of his insane ability to put his team in almost an insurmountable hole early and often, and nothing has changed in that regard from his first day until now. People become enamored with how he performs in games like the KC playoff game, that a few lucky bounces and a bunch of injuries helped him create a huge comeback win ( conveniently forgetting who it was that almost single handedly put them IN that situation to begin with) and then somehow someway neglect to even acknowledge the Pats game the next week, playing a HORRID pass defense and still finding a way to throw five picks, or the Houston game the year before.

People, and the media DESPERATELY want Manning number 2, and Luck fits the "look" of that QB, and so, you have the media force feeding it, and less knowledgeable fans lapping it up and smiling. Wilson is more like Montana than Manning, and personally I'm fine with that. Let rubes that believe otherwise keep believing it, when everything is said and done most of us here and those that watch his excellence repeatedly, can laugh at guys as he is inducted to where he ultimately ends up IMHO.

Wilson has some of Montana's traits (accurate in short inyermediate game, mobile, calm in clutch). But the 49ers were always a pass first team. Montana was predominantly a pocket QB. I'd have to look it up, but I don't believe Montana ever racked up anywhere close to the rushing yds that Wilson has. Montana was a surgeon who diagnosed a D, and his movement outside of the pocket was often scripted with sprint right throws, etc.

Like I posted before, RW does everything Carroll asks of him and does it very well. But I still have not seen the surgeon like pinpoint diagnosing destroying of a D that so many of you claim he can do. I almost feel like because he wins and has some of the general qualities of great QBs ( like Montana) that you are trying to change what RW does to fit a narrative.

If you watched last night, you saw what I posted about before. The difference between thar game and Thursday night was undeniable. Broncos did not even bother with the run and Richardson is aweful. Just an aweful starting RB. Colt D could nit even slow Denver's O. Luck threw one pick and could hardly be blamed for the hole they were in.

In the second half the Colt D actually began to string together some 3 and outs and what happened? Of course Luck.put up 24 points. The second int was right where it should have been and Fleener missed it. Not an easy catch but not on Luck.

Now imagine Luck with a top 1 or 2 run game and a #1 D.

You guys keep asking this chicken v egg question: "Why can't Luck stop 'forcing' the ball and play controlled like Wilson?" . . . . But you can only manage a game if there is a team around you that creates an opportunity for something to manage. Even Peyton threw a ton of picks early on in his career. In fact, he threw far more than luck. I think he turned out pretty good.

I guarantee you Luck could do exactly what RW does in Seattle. It is not even a question whether he'd have a ring there too. But how would Wilson do if he were asked to make the throws and reads that Luck does ALL game, week after week? Answer that honestly. RW flat out does not have the talent to play like that, period.

Luck is also already one of the most cerebral players in the game. There is no young QB that has any advantage on him above the neck.

Luck is a better QB but Wilson has a better team around him. Best way to sum it up.

[burrrton]

I almost feel like because he wins and has some of the general qualities of great QBs ( like Montana) that you are trying to change what RW does to fit a narrative.

One more time, you dishonest dick: the "narrative" built around RW is based on STATISTICS, not some imagined prowess.

Your psychotic inability to see or admit this is becoming aggravating.

RW does everything and does it very well.

There- fixed that for you. Memorize it. You're welcome.

RW flat out does not have the talent to play like that, period.

Name the specific talent he lacks, then show me where you got that idea. Because you know gddmn well we can pull up virtually endless stats and analyses that show he excels at virtually all phases of QB'ing.

[Anthony]

Wilson has some of Montana's traits (accurate in short inyermediate game, mobile, calm in clutch). But the 49ers were always a pass first team. Montana was predominantly a pocket QB. I'd have to look it up, but I don't believe Montana ever racked up anywhere close to the rushing yds that Wilson has. Montana was a surgeon who diagnosed a D, and his movement outside of the pocket was often scripted with sprint right throws, etc.

Like I posted before, RW does everything Carroll asks of him and does it very well. But I still have not seen the surgeon like pinpoint diagnosing destroying of a D that so many of you claim he can do. I almost feel like because he wins and has some of the general qualities of great QBs ( like Montana) that you are trying to change what RW does to fit a narrative.

If you watched last night, you saw what I posted about before. The difference between thar game and Thursday night was undeniable. Broncos did not even bother with the run and Richardson is aweful. Just an aweful starting RB. Colt D could nit even slow Denver's O. Luck threw one pick and could hardly be blamed for the hole they were in.

In the second half the Colt D actually began to string together some 3 and outs and what happened? Of course Luck.put up 24 points. The second int was right where it should have been and Fleener missed it. Not an easy catch but not on Luck.

Now imagine Luck with a top 1 or 2 run game and a #1 D.

You guys keep asking this chicken v egg question: "Why can't Luck stop 'forcing' the ball and play controlled like Wilson?" . . . . But you can only manage a game if there is a team around you that creates an opportunity for something to manage. Even Peyton threw a ton of picks early on in his career. In fact, he threw far more than luck. I think he turned out pretty good.

I guarantee you Luck could do exactly what RW does in Seattle. It is not even a question whether he'd have a ring there too. But how would Wilson do if he were asked to make the throws and reads that Luck does ALL game, week after week? Answer that honestly. RW flat out does not have the talent to play like that, period.

Luck is also already one of the most cerebral players in the game. There is no young QB that has any advantage on him above the neck.

Luck is a better QB but Wilson has a better team around him. Best way to sum it up.

You have not seen it because you do not watch the games objectively, he has done it many times, you are just to caught up in your own BS to know. Luck could not do what Rw does if he was here in Seattle, he has proven he cannot not so far and until he proves otherwise you are wrong. THE FACT AND STATS SHOW WILSON IS BETTER PERIOD and the facts show Luck has a great team around him too, better wrs, better o-line, weaker division, weaker conference, the facts continue to show you are wrong. Imagine Rw with the o-line Luck has or the WRs, and playing in that weak conference and division in a pass happy offense, RW would be off the chart while Luck in our division would be luck id he was in the top half of the league, oh what he is barely in the top half of the league now. Your bias is so pathetic and as stated factually and stats wise WRONG.

[Anthony]

Name the specific talent he lacks, then show me where you got that idea. Because you know gddmn well we can pull up virtually endless stats and analyses that show he excels at virtually all phases of QB'ing.

Great replies, this is were Future he goes silent or make some crap up because he has nothing, they ignorance is bliss Future is the most blissful moron on the planet.

[NorthHawk]

I guarantee you Luck could do exactly what RW does in Seattle. It is not even a question whether he'd have a ring there too. But how would Wilson do if he were asked to make the throws and reads that Luck does ALL game, week after week? Answer that honestly. RW flat out does not have the talent to play like that, period.

That's not a provable point at this time and I hope we never have to find out so making statements like this is stupid.
My personal opinion is Wilson can make those plays, but again, we don't really know.

[mykc14]

I think Luck has all the tools and mental ability to be an amazing QB in this league, maybe even a HOFer. At the same time I wouldn't want any other QB running our team than RW.

[HumanCockroach]

Three years, and still pouting about the "team around him" who's trying to force a narrative. Seattle isn't a vastly different team than the one Wilson inherited, and he has done MORE with less to begin with how you continue to diss Hawks receivers, offensive line year after year, and then claim "better talent " in regards to Wilson is hilarious.

[Futureite]

I guarantee you Luck could do exactly what RW does in Seattle. It is not even a question whether he'd have a ring there too. But how would Wilson do if he were asked to make the throws and reads that Luck does ALL game, week after week? Answer that honestly. RW flat out does not have the talent to play like that, period.

That's not a provable point at this time and I hope we never have to find out so making statements like this is stupid.
My personal opinion is Wilson can make those plays, but again, we don't really know.

That is true. But could he do it play after play, game after game? I mean you guys have talked Wilson up so high to the detriment of all of these other QBs that you've set yourselves up for a ton of scrutiny if he has even one mediocore game. There is always this talk about football IQ, work ethic, etc but he is not displaying a "pick you apart" acumen in any game I've watched. I don't see him reading and disecting Ds, or changing plays, or doing any of these things you guys always claim he does to a higher degree than other young QBs. From what I have seen, he is a heady, athletic QB who makes good decisions and can create big plays. He's very good and he runs your O well, but not at all the way you all portray him.

I have read a lot of junk on Kaep here as well. Granted he played a terrible Dallas D, but he was pinpoint all day and managed a hell of a game. I listened to the rebroadcast of the game on my drive home and Tim Ryan raved about his progressions and reading of the D looks. It's just more proof that game management can and IS learned over time by intelligent, hardworking QBs. It is a process for all QBs and I have maintained that from the beginning of these QB debates. Wilson is no better in this mental phase than Kaep or Luck. He doesn't study harder, prepare better or have a higher football IQ. The performances of all 3 guys this weekend illustrated that.

[burrrton]

Repost for Future:

Name the specific talent he lacks, then show me where you got that idea.

But could he do it play after play, game after game?

Well, we don't know, but why would you think he *couldn't*? Unless I'm missing what specifically you're referring to, he's shown he *can* do all that, and very well, arguably even better than Luck, when forced to do so.

Your argument could be turned around, too: Whatever you think of Luck's performance, could he have done it the last couple years facing Seattle, SF, AZ, and/or the Rams' D 6 games a season?

If you think so, why?

[kalibane]

All this boils down to one fundamental fact.

Arguments pro-Wilson (on this forum at least) have all been built on tangible things. Stats, film, results.

Argument against Wilson by Future: All built on intangible hypothetical projections (which are in Future's case tainted by clear bias).

No point in engaging in the argument. Every single argument that Future applies to Wilson you could modify the wording slightly, reverse it and say the same for Luck... to downgrade him. If If If... like Joe Namath said... such a big word for only two letters.

I don't deal in "ifs" I deal with what's actually taken place.

[Futureite]

Your argument could be turned around, too: Whatever you think of Luck's performance, could he have done it the last couple years facing Seattle, SF, AZ, and/or the Rams' D 6 games a season?

If you think so, why?[/quote]

Limited sample size, but look at the two QB's two performances head to head V other young QBs in this debate. Luck will WIN, playing for a lesser team. People here keep saying he digs a hole, but if that is true then why does he keep beating the QBs that are supposedly better than him, each.of whom play on.better teams? For god sakes, the Colts started Ricky Jean Franciou and Cam Johnson last night. If you remember, both were late RD pick backup players for the 49ers! The answer is, because Luck is a better QB.

Second point, Luck came out running the entire Colt O from the gate. Entire franchise put on his shoulders. That is measureable in pass attempts.

On the otherand, Wilson had something like 5 tds 4 ints before that Bear's comeback midway through the yr. In short, Luck was more NFL ready and prepared to run a prostyle O and do so effectively. If anything, he was more mentally prepared than any of the young QBs entering the league.

Admittedly, most people here state Luck is more talented. He is. He has better footwork, a stronger, more accurate arm for the type of throws the Colt O requires. He is a classic, Marinoesque dropback pocket passer with unique abilities that other QBs (including Wilson) do not possess.

Those are the tangible reasons.

The intangibles are work ethic, clutch gene, reading of a D. This is the argument most use in favor of RW, because they level the playing field. The talent disparity shows one is better, but through citing intangibles which cannot be measured the argument can be simplified and shifted. And no one can ever prove whose intangibles are better.

Alex Smith put up a better QB rating than Luck last yr and even halfway through 2012. Is he even remotely within the same class? Of course not. He was put in more advatnageous positions, asked to do less with a better run game and better D. That does not make him a better QB.

[burrrton]

Future, I think the strength of your argument is illustrated *perfectly* with the rationale you presented in that post.

And that's not a compliment.

[Futureite]

Will anyone make the same argument in favor of Kaep?

Kaep had better career QB rating than Luck. Better win percentage, regular and post season.

Does this mean Kaep is better than Luck?

[burrrton]

Does this mean Kaep is better than Luck?

Not by itself. Is Kaep also better than Luck in every other measure of QB performance like RW is?

[Futureite]

Future, I think the strength of your argument is illustrated *perfectly* with the rationale you presented in that post.

And that's not a compliment.

I'm sorry. Watching the Thursday Night game and Sunday Night illustrated the difference. I am sure RW ended with a good QB rating, but what did he do?? A screen TD pass and one thrown on a trick play. The rest were bubble screens and 10 yd slants with the occassional deep shot. Be did what he was suppose to do, but you cannot gavue numbers built off games like this to claim one guy is better than the other.

Then you look at Luck. No run game. No D. And from play 1 he is making bigtime NFL throws downfield in addittion to the short/intermediate stuff. Of course there is more risk in that. He has no opportunity to run a fake read option pass for a TD oe a screen because no one respects Trent Richardson in the run game.

I feel as though some if you watch thus, you know it but you do not want to admit it. I think most ibjective people eould still take luck #1 overall if given the choice today to choose sny od the young QBs.

[kalibane]

You want to talk about limited sample size and then talk about where they were halfway through a season when over the course of the same season Russell Wilson beat him in every single statistical category except raw yardage.

You keep throwing out footwork over and over again. It's one of the areas where you expose yourself. Russell Wilson does not have technical flaws (That is Kaep's territory). His height was the only reason why he wasn't a top 5 pick in the draft. His throwing motion, his footwork, his arm strength, his accuracy. NONE of that was in question. I guess you think you sound smart by throwing out stuff like that but you don't. Playing with Ricky Jean Francios means nothing. You could say that Wilson is playing with Ricardo Lockette taking meaningful stats who couldn't even make the 49ers active roster. OBVIOUSLY that means Wilson is the better QB.

But you know what you don't hear that argument from us because it's a straw man, based on pure conjecture with nothing based in reality to back it up.

At the end of the day your entire argument hinges on "if" period, point blank. You don't want to believe that Wilson has been better than Luck so you project that Wilson wouldn't be able to do what Luck has done simply because he hasn't had to.

It's the same thing with your bogus Sherman argument. If Sherman was really the best he'd follow the best receiver. Which presumes that the only way to construct a passing defense when you have a true lockdown corner is to build the scheme around that corner "following", which affects the jobs of everyone else in the back 7 of the defense depending on where the "best" WR on the other team lines up on a given play.

This presumption is of course completely negated by the fact that the Seahawks just fielded the best passing defense in this century (at minimum) without having a corner follow. If Patrick Peterson was here, he'd play on one side. If Revis was here he'd play on one side. Because that is how Pete Carroll wants his scheme to work.

But forget facts... you'll just base the entire crux on your argument on an "if". So I'll continue to poke holes in your arguments and point out how silly they are if you want to keep making them. But we've been over this ground before and there is no point in offering up an argument for Wilson at this point when you are determined to live in fantasy land.

[Anthony]

I think Luck has all the tools and mental ability to be an amazing QB in this league, maybe even a HOFer. At the same time I wouldn't want any other QB running our team than RW.

True and not to mention Rw has all the tools to be a HOF as well. and then some. By the way Ryan Lead had all the tools too how did that work out for him?

[kalibane]

I'm sorry. Watching the Thursday Night game and Sunday Night illustrated the difference. I am sure RW ended with a good QB rating, but what did he do?? A screen TD pass and one thrown on a trick play. The rest were bubble screens and 10 yd slants with the occassional deep shot. Be did what he was suppose to do, but you cannot gavue numbers built off games like this to claim one guy is better than the other.

Then you look at Luck. No run game. No D. And from play 1 he is making bigtime NFL throws downfield in addittion to the short/intermediate stuff. Of course there is more risk in that. He has no opportunity to run a fake read option pass for a TD oe a screen because no one respects Trent Richardson in the run game.

Not only is your argument based on "if" but now you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the Seahawks Offense. Yes they run a lot. But the passing game is built on taking big shots down the field for chunks of yardage, not the intermediate and short passing game. The bubble screens and short passes to get Harvin in space were added into the offense to take advantage of Harvin. They were never a safety blanket for Wilson.

Once again showing you don't actually watch anything.

[Anthony]

That is true. But could he do it play after play, game after game? I mean you guys have talked Wilson up so high to the detriment of all of these other QBs that you've set yourselves up for a ton of scrutiny if he has even one mediocore game. There is always this talk about football IQ, work ethic, etc but he is not displaying a "pick you apart" acumen in any game I've watched. I don't see him reading and disecting Ds, or changing plays, or doing any of these things you guys always claim he does to a higher degree than other young QBs. From what I have seen, he is a heady, athletic QB who makes good decisions and can create big plays. He's very good and he runs your O well, but not at all the way you all portray him.

I have read a lot of junk on Kaep here as well. Granted he played a terrible Dallas D, but he was pinpoint all day and managed a hell of a game. I listened to the rebroadcast of the game on my drive home and Tim Ryan raved about his progressions and reading of the D looks. It's just more proof that game management can and IS learned over time by intelligent, hardworking QBs. It is a process for all QBs and I have maintained that from the beginning of these QB debates. Wilson is no better in this mental phase than Kaep or Luck. He doesn't study harder, prepare better or have a higher football IQ. The performances of all 3 guys this weekend illustrated that.

Yet another statement you cannot prove at all but it is interesting how Rw has the best career QB rating of the 3 proof of superior overall performance. Other than that as usual you have nothing.

[burrrton]

I'm sorry.

At this point, I think we all are, Future.

[Anthony]

Your argument could be turned around, too: Whatever you think of Luck's performance, could he have done it the last couple years facing Seattle, SF, AZ, and/or the Rams' D 6 games a season?

If you think so, why?

Limited sample size, but look at the two QB's two performances head to head V other young QBs in this debate. Luck will WIN, playing for a lesser team. People here keep saying he digs a hole, but if that is true then why does he keep beating the QBs that are supposedly better than him, each.of whom play on.better teams? For god sakes, the Colts started Ricky Jean Franciou and Cam Johnson last night. If you remember, both were late RD pick backup players for the 49ers! The answer is, because Luck is a better QB.

Second point, Luck came out running the entire Colt O from the gate. Entire franchise put on his shoulders. That is measureable in pass attempts.

On the otherand, Wilson had something like 5 tds 4 ints before that Bear's comeback midway through the yr. In short, Luck was more NFL ready and prepared to run a prostyle O and do so effectively. If anything, he was more mentally prepared than any of the young QBs entering the league.

Admittedly, most people here state Luck is more talented. He is. He has better footwork, a stronger, more accurate arm for the type of throws the Colt O requires. He is a classic, Marinoesque dropback pocket passer with unique abilities that other QBs (including Wilson) do not possess.

Those are the tangible reasons.

The intangibles are work ethic, clutch gene, reading of a D. This is the argument most use in favor of RW, because they level the playing field. The talent disparity shows one is better, but through citing intangibles which cannot be measured the argument can be simplified and shifted. And no one can ever prove whose intangibles are better.

Alex Smith put up a better QB rating than Luck last yr and even halfway through 2012. Is he even remotely within the same class? Of course not. He was put in more advatnageous positions, asked to do less with a better run game and better D. That does not make him a better QB.[/quote]

once again no facts or stats to support you so its all your worthless opinions. Here are facts for you

against the same opponents, Rw has a better run game and D, Luck better o-line and WRs and those are facts

Russell Wilson Versus common opponents.

Completions: 126
Attempts: 216
Yards: 1577.00
Completion Rate: 58.33%
TD: 13
INT:5
Passer Rating: 91.53

Andrew Luck versus common opponents.

Completions: 180
Attempts: 324
Yards: 2097.00
Completion Rate: 55.55%
TD: 10
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 79.2


Enough said Wilson is better the facts prove it.

[Futureite]

Kalibane;

That is what I have been posting the entire time. The Hawks are a heavy playaction team built on the run and taking shots. When they do go 3 wide or empty backfield you do see a lot of WR screens and basic short/intermediate route combos. I have been saying this for yrs Kalibane. Everytime you guys would talk up Wilson's study habits, his football IQ and ability to read a D I'd point out what he actually does during the game. Don't get upset now that he did not initially show this big arial arsenal that you guys predicted in other threads. Maybe he will beginning next week against another bad D in San Diego. But to date he hasn't lived up to the junk you guys talked about Kaep, Luck and other QBs.

[Anthony]

I'm sorry. Watching the Thursday Night game and Sunday Night illustrated the difference. I am sure RW ended with a good QB rating, but what did he do?? A screen TD pass and one thrown on a trick play. The rest were bubble screens and 10 yd slants with the occassional deep shot. Be did what he was suppose to do, but you cannot gavue numbers built off games like this to claim one guy is better than the other.

Then you look at Luck. No run game. No D. And from play 1 he is making bigtime NFL throws downfield in addittion to the short/intermediate stuff. Of course there is more risk in that. He has no opportunity to run a fake read option pass for a TD oe a screen because no one respects Trent Richardson in the run game.

I feel as though some if you watch thus, you know it but you do not want to admit it. I think most ibjective people eould still take luck #1 overall if given the choice today to choose sny od the young QBs.

. By the way you do know Luck is the reason they lost 5, straight drive under 3:30 minutes that means the defense had to be on the field for a long time because Luck sucked, by the way you do know Wilson led the league in down field throws last year, and had several Thursday night. Know your facts. As to take Luck #1 really you should look at the paid part of ESPN they asked 30 Gms and 60% said they would take Rw now. more crap you have no clue about.

[Anthony]

Kalibane;

That is what I have been posting the entire time. The Hawks are a heavy playaction team built on the run and taking shots. When they do go 3 wide or empty backfield you do see a lot of WR screens and basic short/intermediate route combos. I have been saying this for yrs Kalibane. Everytime you guys would talk up Wilson's study habits, his football IQ and ability to read a D I'd point out what he actually does during the game. Don't get upset now that he did not initially show this big arial arsenal that you guys predicted in other threads. Maybe he will beginning next week against another bad D in San Diego. But to date he hasn't lived up to the junk you guys talked about Kaep, Luck and other QBs.

Your a moron Rw gets 4 plays every down he picks the play not the OC, Rw. 1 game last year Rw led the league in down filed throws, you have nothing again, but crap, and you really do not know the facts at all.

[kalibane]

Kalibane;

That is what I have been posting the entire time. The Hawks are a heavy playaction team built on the run and taking shots. When they do go 3 wide or empty backfield you do see a lot of WR screens and basic short/intermediate route combos. I have been saying this for yrs Kalibane. Everytime you guys would talk up Wilson's study habits, his football IQ and ability to read a D I'd point out what he actually does during the game. Don't get upset now that he did not initially show this big arial arsenal that you guys predicted in other threads. Maybe he will beginning next week against another bad D in San Diego. But to date he hasn't lived up to the junk you guys talked about Kaep, Luck and other QBs.

You're mistake is you think that they only run short passes when they have empty sets. The Seahawks actually run empty sets quite a bit and the passing game is still designed to take shots down the field, not bubble screens and slants.

No one is upset Future... you're just wrong and fabricating your supposed "analysis". How long you've been reasserting the incorrect observations is a testament to your commitment to being wrong rather than admit the Seahawks have something special and nothing else.

If you want to see Wilson's Football IQ and deep ball ability on display you don't have to go back too far. 4th and 5 Wilson is on the sideline telling Pete Carroll he's going to get the 49ers with a hard count. He then goes out 3 wide in the Shotgun (no play action), pulls the defense offsides just like he said he could and then drops a perfect 35 yard strike to Kearse for a TD to put the Seahawks up for good.

You want so desperately to believe that Wilson can only be effective down the field when he's using play action. The truth is he actually has one of the best deep balls in the NFL which is why you continue to make yourself look stupid when you talk about this stuff.

[burrrton]

When they do go 3 wide or empty backfield you do see a lot of WR screens and basic short/intermediate route combos.

Yards-per-attempt for 2013:

Andrew Luck: 6.71 (26th)
Russell Wilson: 8.25 (4th)

Woops.

Further, Luck got worse 2012 to 2013 (6.98 --> 6.71) while RW got better (7.93 --> 8.25).

C'mon, Future- this is kinda fun now. Pull another explanation out of your ass...

Maybe pull out your classic "LUCK'S NUMBERS ARE SO SH*TTY (relatively) BECAUSE HE'S SO GOOD!" again.

[edit- and I'd like to say this isn't a knock on Luck on my part- I think the guy's a stud and could eventually be better than RW. There simply is no argument that's been the case to this point, though]

[Seahawks4Ever]

Monkey; I want to puke every time Collingsworth gushes about Luck, even calling him the "master" of the come back. Well, he would have to have a come back if he wasn't down, would he?

I bet Collingsworth has sore knees this morning...

[Futureite]

Dude. Really. If you throw 5 screens and a 60 yd pass from playaction, what happens to your yds/attempt?? I am obviously using hyperbole to prove a point, but it's not that far off from what RW actually does. It's a lot of high percentage short stuff, a lot of Lynch, and then calculated deep ball playaction. You are not telling me anything other than what I have posted here everytime we've debated this.

I've always said RW is good at the things PC asks him to do. You guys just cannot help yourselves from stretching what does though to be a defense reading, audibling master who outstudies and out thinks everyone else. I've read it here for yrs. Heard all of the "well so and so is more talented but Russell is more (list intangibles)" knocking other QBs. It's just corny. It's equally as insulting as the other side which calls him nothing but a "game manager". Talk about extremes.

1 game in and including the last 6 of last yr after his great Monday night game, he actually looks like the lesser of the 3 QBs. There is no way in hell you can point to anything he's done over that stretch and logically argue that he's better than anyone. And he's never outworked or out anythinged Kaep or Luck in the mental area. Until he starts playing like the Drew Brees prototype you've made him out to be, probably best to just drop that talk.

[kalibane]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... reen-game/

What's that? Russell Wilson got the exact same percentage of his yards from screen passes as Andrew Luck? And a smaller percentage than Brady, Manning and Rodgers?

Care to make up another bogus argument Future?